Frankel WTR rating

I guess I would, on the basis of the hard-on that all our aged friends seem to have for him.

But I am only deferring to this erection perception. I have not analysed it enough to have a proper opinion. And I don’t like having proper opinions without at least some rationale. Like EC1, only lazier, you could say.
 
Bar the Bull said:


Usain Bolt might be 4L better than this “average” athlete. Lewis might have been 3L better. Jesse Owens might have been 5L better. For me, this would show that Owens is the best athlete, even though he couldn’t run as fast as Bolt or Lewis. Effectively, you are normalising versus the contemporary average
Click to expand...

Exactly. If you're comparing athletes from any sport using a faster or stronger method is always gonna favour the modern guy. Did it take longer for Eddy Merkyx to get up a big **** off mountain than an Indurain or a Delgado?
Baseball is perhaps the sport with the best body of statistics that enables us to compare different eras. Ted Williams hit .400 in 1941 and remains the last player to have hit for that high an average. He remains in most people's eyes the greatest pure hitter in that sport.
 
Miesque said:
Horses can effectively blood dope themselves - they have the ability to have splenic contractions which increase their RBC count by about 30%. That allows them to carry more oxygen around the body. Training at altitude doesn't affect them to a particularly noticeable degree due to that.
Click to expand...

I know they blood dope themselves but didn't know that this means the impact of altitude is negated. Interesting, and given the difficulties, not a route worth pursuing!
 
krizon said:
Which course would you choose for this match, Aragorn? Newmarket, Ascot, or Epsom? What I do wonder is if BC would handle undulations here in the UK - Australian tracks look pretty flat to me, although now someone will stomp me to dust and say I'm wrong! Or would you like FRANKEL to travel to Melbourne?

It'd be the race of a lifetime for most of us around now - imagine the take on the gate, wherever it was!
Click to expand...

Royal Randwick (Sydney) has a rise on the straight, you can actually see it in the head-on footage. Sandown (Melbourne) I believe also has one, and there may also be a rise on the Caulfield (Melbourne) track. .

They are all "slight" compared to that rise that is at Royal Ascot, where you can see them coming up the hill, sotospeak.

Great effort for Australian racing, and as for a match race, I just cannot see it ever happening. I doubt her connections would ever dare to try going over 6f, though I think she is signed, sealed and delivered up to 7f. If there was a match race, anything up to 7f she would win, anything over that distance he wins.

I know we all want it, but is it really worth tarnishing one or the other's records? Also where would it be held? Why should she have to travel to Europe, and why should he have to travel to Australia to cement their supreme status? To be fair it'd have to be held in Singapore, Dubai or Hong Kong. Asides from Dubai, I cannot honestly see the other two shelling out the money to get them there.
 
Bar the Bull said:
Let us say that there the average college athlete (say ranked 500 in the US) can run 10.90 seconds over 100m.

That might have been 11.00 in 1990, and 11.10 in 1970 and 11.25 in 1930.

Usain Bolt might be 4L better than this “average” athlete. Lewis might have been 3L better. Jesse Owens might have been 5L better.

For me, this would show that Owens is the best athlete, even though he couldn’t run as fast as Bolt or Lewis. Effectively, you are normalising versus the contemporary average.

DJ will probably say that I am talking horse sh1t, but what Timeform is trying to do is similar to this.

I agree that Kauto of 2009 would beat Arkle of 196? in a straight race. However, I think Kauto would probably be beaten by Arkle if shot back to the 60s and trained by the Nicholls equivalent at the time, with the facilities and feed and training regime of the time.
Click to expand...

Horses are not improving at the same rate as human athletes, how could they? They can't be taught to run any differently than they already do and performance enhancing products are forbidden. A fit and healthy horse of 50 years ago would be no slower than his modern counterpart, but the latter might be brought to a peak more efficiently and might be able to hold it for longer.
 
Last edited:
Performance-enhancing "products" aren't forbidden, Grey. They have to be taken out of the horse's system by the time it races, I think it's 10 days before raceday (Trudi, are you reading this - can you confirm?). And there are loads of performance-enhancing products available these days which are entirely legal but unknown 50, even 20, years ago. Veterinary science has improved beyond the knowledge of vets of half a century back, and it's an area which continues to evolve and benefit horses in training.

But as for horses running faster these days - I knew of an unwonderful mare who raced in the late 1950s in what's now Zambia, a reject from South Africa. She zoomed round on crumbly rough ground, ridden by what would be by today's professional standards no more than a happy amateur, and was hand-clocked at 43 mph in her races, which she won.

Given all of the operations, spa treatments, training regimes, special tack, food supplements and veterinary applications available to today's racehorses, you are quite right, there are no appreciable changes in terms of ability. We can force their nostrils open, tie their tongues down, stuff them full of beneficial supplements and have them ridden by what are now much better-trained and more professional jockeys than in the past - but we cannot train them to run any faster than their anatomy permits. (And that applies to humans, too - if you're built like a Sumo wrestler, there is little point in trying to take up gymnastics!)
 
Performance-enhancing "products" aren't forbidden, Grey. They have to be taken out of the horse's system by the time it races, I think it's 10 days before raceday
Click to expand...

If that was the case, then why do they make surprise visits to stable yards to test horses? You might remember they did this to Martin Pipe - more than once, I think.
 
I think its 7 days before they dont show in a blood test, but most people use 10 days as a guide to be safe.

Unless its treatment for hives given in Ireland before the horse returns - then it seems to stay in the system for a lot longer... ;)
 
Thanks, Troodles. Grey, all trainers know that they are liable to have random stable visits made. They must keep all of the horses' veterinary charts up to date (I'm sure I put this stuff up when the Henderson fiasco kicked off), with every piece of info correctly filled in: what the medication/treatment is, first date of administration, dosage, rate of medication, final date, vet sign-off.

There are horses which are in training on anti-arthritic and steroidal drugs in this country, but the effects of the administration have to be out of their systems in order for them to race. If the trainer fails to enter up this administration on the stables' medical chart (which is to be kept in plain view for inspection), he's in deep doo-doo. When the programme of medication is finished, it's signed off by the vet responsible. If the vet fails to do this, just the same as a trainer not keeping proper records, the BHA will investigate and fines or worse may be the result.
 
Last edited:
SteveM said:
The fashion these days seems to be to add pounds for what they might have run to rather than what they did run to, which should not have a place in historic ratings (more appropriate as a working hypothesis during the season).
Click to expand...

"In the International Classification for three-year-olds published in mid-December Dancing Brave is assessed more highly than any horse since the classifications were introduced in the 'seventies. A different scale was adopted in 1986 - to 'bring Classification figures into line with commercial ratings' - and Dancing Brave was given a figure of 141. We are well aware of the pitfalls of criticising the work of others - no one is immune from the blunder, the error of judgement - but we cannot for the life of us understand how Dancing Brave is reckoned to have given Bering a 7-lb beating in the Trusthouse Forte Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe. Bering appears on 134, sharing second spot with Shahrastani, so the official handicappers have obviously given Dancing Brave credit for what he did not do. On the official result of the Arc Dancing Brave comes out 3 lb better than Bering and 4 lb better than Shahrastani. As we have said, we made the winning distance in the Arc nearer two lengths and have, accordingly, rated Dancing Brave 4 lb superior to Bering and 5 lb above Shahrastani (in our view the Classification underestimates the merit of the two last-named). But we have no truck with anyone who tells us that on the form-book Dancing Brave is entitled to be regarded 7 lb in front of any other horse in Europe in 1986."

- from Timeform's Racehorses of 1986 (emphasis mine).
 
krizon said:
Thanks, Troodles. Grey, all trainers know that they are liable to have random stable visits made. They must keep all of the horses' veterinary charts up to date (I'm sure I put this stuff up when the Henderson fiasco kicked off), with every piece of info correctly filled in: what the medication/treatment is, first date of administration, dosage, rate of medication, final date, vet sign-off.

There are horses which are in training on anti-arthritic and steroidal drugs in this country, but the effects of the administration have to be out of their systems in order for them to race. If the trainer fails to enter up this administration on the stables' medical chart (which is to be kept in plain view for inspection), he's in deep doo-doo. When the programme of medication is finished, it's signed off by the vet responsible. If the vet fails to do this, just the same as a trainer not keeping proper records, the BHA will investigate and fines or worse may be the result.
Click to expand...

Thanks Kriz. You can use these substances to treat horses for their ailments but you can't use them to enhance performance on the track.
 
Can I throw in a sideway glance. Creekside runs over hurdles in the first at Catterick tomorrow but was rated 100 on the flat over a mile. I'd have no doubt Frankel would be 1/10 to beat him over a mile conceding 36lbs. My point being the 136 rating for Frankel is either too low or the handicap has become too compressed and average horses are now being rated too high.


.
 
Last edited:
For anyone interested, the BHA site contains a humungous section on Medications and the Control of Drugs. The only traces still permitted to be found in horses during racing are antibiotics and wormers (although not all wormers), since they're not performance-enhancing. They state that no medications should be administered to assist performance in training, but only treat the horses' ailments. Hmmm... then how come anti-bleed products get used? They enhance performance, but even herbal varieties are supposed to be out of a horse's system when it comes to race, which rather denies its purpose.
 
Nicky Henderson was banned because he allowed the use of a drug NO WAIT!! a medicine that women take when they have eceptionally heavy periods.

That's an anti bleed product but how does it enhance performance ap[art from alloing a sick horse to run.

To me these rulles are draconian and unfair. An owner could spend 1million buying a horse then find out it can't run because it bleeds but he can't treat it just before a race because they have banned the sustance for reason I cannot understand.

Be glad to be corrected but that to me is just so wrong.

IMO in the interest of racing and to ensure all investors who pour millions into racing by puchasing race horses should be given every assistance to make sure their horses can run up to their best.

The only drugs that should be banned are drugs that actually make a normal horse go faster or slower other than that owners trainers and vets should be allowed to treat their horses as they see fit.

Naive perhaps but that's the way I see it.
 
Thought this was about World rankings:blink:

The problem is there is not enough room to fit all horses past and present into place and some rating must be complete nonsense.

For example Sea the Stars got a 140 from Professor Steven A. Roman but Zarkava who won the Arc in much easier fashion then he did plus beat the same horse doesn't warrant a mention. She IMO would have beat Sea the Stars.

Visually Frankel is one of the best I have ever seen but compare his wonderful performance in the 2000 Guineas to Secretariat's absolutely mind blowing performance in the Belmont.

The fact is Frankel was stopping and showed he had limits but Secretariat ran the same sort of race but went further and further away quickening and quickening. USA horses never got Timeform ratings way back then but if they had he's have been 150+ all day long.

How do you squeeze Frankel in is the big question? Where do you put him? Above or below the great Mill Reef? Mill Reef beat much better horses than Frankel did although Canford Cliffs was potentially going to be one of the best milers ever but sadly was injured.

There just isn't any horse around that Frankel could beat that would justify him getting within 7lbs of Sea Bird II but you simply cant put him down or the other rankings all start to look silly.

He is to my eye visually one of the best I have seen, but unless something comes along wins the Guineas and the Derby and Frankel beats him 6 lengths over 10 furlongs doing handstands in between times, then he isn't going anywhere without Timefomr abusing the sytem for commercial purposes.

I'd love to see him hailed the best of all time but I just can't see how it can be justified

My own visual rating of all the horses I have seen via live or video

Secretariat 150 +

Sea Bird II 148

Mill Reef 146

Frankel 145

Brigadier Gerard 143

Nijinsky 143

Dancing Brave 143

Zarkava 142

Sea the Stars 139

The most over rated horse I can find is Harbinger. He beat sod all when he won the King George a horse that didn't stay the trip that day and a monkey who would have got beat in a Hamiltion seller one day and finish runner up in a group 1 the next. Workfore was all wrong so can't be counted.

Everytime I watch the race I think of Grand Crus flying down the Cheltenham hill and beating nothing. The next thing we knew hhe was 2or 3 lbs within Big Bucks..................In reality try 10-12lb lbs if he's lucky and Harbinger was no different IMO.
 
Last edited:
Tanlic said:
For example Sea the Stars got a 140 from Professor Steven A. Roman but Zarkava who won the Arc in much easier fashion then he did plus beat the same horse doesn't warrant a mention. She IMO would have beat Sea the Stars.
Click to expand...

I doubt very much that Sea The Stars was rated that high by anyone for his Arc performance.
 
Tanlic, yes, as always, we got a bit blown off-course by comparisons to Old vs Current performances, which - as I went on to say rather too windily - would be futile, given the amount of changes since the Old Days and Now, although max equine speed is no different, even allowing for improved jockey skills, feeds, medications, treatments and training facilities.

What you seem to be doing is to compare the manner in which horses ran their races in order to rate one higher than the other. But handicappers don't take much notice of whether one is going faster at the end and one is slowing (would that possibly be because the jockey felt it had proved enough to win and didn't need to keep running hard?). They go by distance won and time, don't they? So they'd rate X a bit higher if X won by 20l and Y won by 15, but it doesn't necessarily point to Y being the lesser of the two runners - it would point to them being ridden differently, though, and if there was ever a meet-up, the riding might be different again, with Y's jockey being more aggressive near the finish. In other words, you don't have to be storming home (or, put another way, grandstanding) to be the superior horse. One that's not allowed to blast home but still win nicely enough could have more up his sleeve, were it really necessary to prove the point.

A lot of folks will recount how such-and-such a horse absolutely zoomed home, as if that automatically makes it superior to any past or present rival (real or imagined), but that's down to the jockey's decision. You can still win the Derby or the Preakness in a more modified style that doesn't showboat the horse's full speed. While one is more visually exciting, it doesn't mean that the other comparatives were less talented if they were not being asked to turbo to the line.

(Just chucking an idea into the mix - not contradicting you or anyone else.)
 
Last edited:
Tanlic said:
The problem is there is not enough room to fit all horses past and present into place and some rating must be complete nonsense.

For example Sea the Stars got a 140 from Professor Steven A. Roman but Zarkava who won the Arc in much easier fashion then he did plus beat the same horse doesn't warrant a mention. She IMO would have beat Sea the Stars
Click to expand...

Steve Roman (PhD) doesn’t rate horses Tanlic the 140 for STS is a Timeform rating from those supplied to his website and Zarkava doesn’t rate as highly because you have to consider her allowance as a filly when describing absolute ratings. Her best RPR was 129, whereas STS best RPR was 138. That's why she doesn't feature in the all-time Timeform highweight list, which only goes down to 135.
 
Last edited:
Secretariat was a great favourite of mine: Rated 144 in 1973 (American horse of the century), 1lb lower than Sea-Bird: Rated 145 in 1965 (Horse of the century).
 
Gareth Flynn said:
"In the International Classification for three-year-olds published in mid-December Dancing Brave is assessed more highly than any horse since the classifications were introduced in the 'seventies. A different scale was adopted in 1986 - to 'bring Classification figures into line with commercial ratings' - and Dancing Brave was given a figure of 141. We are well aware of the pitfalls of criticising the work of others - no one is immune from the blunder, the error of judgement - but we cannot for the life of us understand how Dancing Brave is reckoned to have given Bering a 7-lb beating in the Trusthouse Forte Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe. Bering appears on 134, sharing second spot with Shahrastani, so the official handicappers have obviously given Dancing Brave credit for what he did not do. On the official result of the Arc Dancing Brave comes out 3 lb better than Bering and 4 lb better than Shahrastani. As we have said, we made the winning distance in the Arc nearer two lengths and have, accordingly, rated Dancing Brave 4 lb superior to Bering and 5 lb above Shahrastani (in our view the Classification underestimates the merit of the two last-named). But we have no truck with anyone who tells us that on the form-book Dancing Brave is entitled to be regarded 7 lb in front of any other horse in Europe in 1986."

- from Timeform's Racehorses of 1986 (emphasis mine).
Click to expand...

Thanks for this Gareth. This is the pot calling the kettle black when you consider their treatment of Harbinger!:lol:
 
Back
Top