Frankel WTR rating

[Harbinger]

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

I don't see anything in Timeform's ratings for the 2010 King George that suggests they gave extra credit to Harbinger for what he did not do - the difference in ratings between Harbinger and the 2nd placed Cape Blanco is consistent with the difference in ratings between Cape Blanco and the last-placed Confront, taking into account the distances each was beaten. If extra credit was given to Harbinger this would not be the case.

 

[Bar the Bull]

I don’t get the big deal with Timeform and Harbinger.

Timeform ranked him at 140, which was 7lb clear of the field (led by Goldikova) in 2010
The official handicapper ranked him at 135, which was 6lb clear of the field (led by Makfi) in 2010
RPR ranked him at 135, which was 5lb clear of the field (led by Canford Cliffs) in 2010

What is so weird about that?

As I remember saying before, I don’t think Harbinger was 5-7lb clear of the best of the class of 2010. But the big 3 rating organisations all did, which makes me think I am wrong.

 

[SteveM]

I don't see anything in Timeform's ratings for the 2010 King George that suggests they gave extra credit to Harbinger for what he did not do - the difference in ratings between Harbinger and the 2nd placed Cape Blanco is consistent with the difference in ratings between Cape Blanco and the last-placed Confront, taking into account the distances each was beaten. If extra credit was given to Harbinger this would not be the case.

The official mark of 135 may be consistent with that, but Timeform's 142 (even when subsequently downgraded to 140 by TF) looks inflated to me.

I don't want to put words into David J's mouth, but I'm sure I remember him saying when TF dropped him to 140 from 142 that it was because Timeform could not fully back up the form analysis and make it square with such a high rating, so were happier with 140 as the Time figure put him at "just 135". There seems to be a bit of extra credit here to me.

Again remember this was just on the KG run. Every other rating for him was nowhere near even his Time figure of 135.

 

[Bar the Bull]

The official mark of 135 may be consistent with that, but Timeform's 142 (even when subsequently downgraded to 140 by TF) looks inflated to me.

I don't want to put words into David J's mouth, but I'm sure I remember him saying when TF dropped him to 140 from 142 that it was because Timeform could not fully back up the form analysis and make it square with such a high rating, so were happier with 140 as the Time figure put him at "just 135". There seems to be a bit of extra credit here to me.

Again remember this was just on the KG run. Every other rating for him was nowhere near even his Time figure of 135.

But all the handicappers hadicapped him solely on his KG run. It was the only run meriting a mark of 130+.

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)

Timeform is actually a pound below RPR, if you standardise them. You will remember that Timeform ratings are 6lb higher than OR.

RPR seem to have the more sober view of the performance, as RPR is typically 5lb higher or so than OR.

 

[Euronymous]

But all the handicappers hadicapped him solely on his KG run. It was the only run meriting a mark of 130+.

His Hardwicke run easily merited 130+. The race worked out very well.

This horse is unfairly maligned in my opinion because he came into the KG relatively unhyped and was overlooked by his normal jockey for reasons that had little to do with the chance he had in that race.

 

[EC1]

Harbinger was overrated imo...WF didn't run his race and CB was legless and far better at 10f as highlighted by the routing he handed out later in Ireland

yes it looked impressive..but not higher than a 130 imo..on a OHR scale.

its getting confusing again..140 this scale..136 that scale etc

 

[Harbinger]

The official mark of 135 may be consistent with that, but Timeform's 142 (even when subsequently downgraded to 140 by TF) looks inflated to me.

You may think its too high, but that is not the same thing as him getting credit for something he didn't do.

 

[Harbinger]

Harbinger was overrated imo...WF didn't run his race

Nobody in their right mind would rate the 2010 King George via the assumption that Workforce ran his race. I don't understand why it's dragged out to denigrate the form; it's a non-issue, a red herring.

 

[EC1]

Nobody in their right mind would rate the 2010 King George via the assumption that Workforce ran his race. I don't understand why it's dragged out to denigrate the form; it's a non-issue, a red herring.

..but people do mention WF was beaten..trying to make that an issue in hyping up H's rating..i agree its a non argument..but some mention the fact he was well beat as if to prove something

the fact that Moore didn't know there was a horse in the stable better than WF is hard to believe..if Harbinger is this giant we are led to believe..he would have been on it..you could not possibly have one of the greats in the yard and not know it imo

Yes jocks get it wrong..but i find it hard to believe that Harbinger was a better horse than even WF..never mind one of the best in the last 40 years

 

[Euronymous]

Yes jocks get it wrong..but i find it hard to believe that Harbinger was a better horse than even WF..never mind one of the best in the last 40 years

Workforce was an unbeaten Derby winner owned by the stables most important patron. I very much doubt that Moore had any choice to make at all.

 

[SteveM]

You may think its too high, but that is not the same thing as him getting credit for something he didn't do.

You conveniently ignored the other part of my post. Timeform say the time rating was 135 (which coincidently is the same as the OR), but they gave him 142 anyway. They subsequently decided to reduce this to 140 because they could not justify 142 on form. As far as I can see they can't justify 140 on form either.

 

[trackside528]

But Timeform say the time rating was 135 (which coincidently is the same as the OR), but they gave him 142 anyway. They subsequently decided to reduce this to 140 because they could not justify 142 on form. As far as I can see they can't justify 140 on form either.

The Timefigure is just one element of the actual Timeform rating though, isn't it? Just because the Timefigure is lower than the actual rating doesn't make it unjustifiable I wouldn't have thought?

Presumably the final figure was based on race standardisation etc. combined with the Timefigure.

 

[SteveM]

The Timefigure is just one element of the actual Timeform rating though, isn't it? Just because the Timefigure is lower than the actual rating doesn't make it unjustifiable I wouldn't have thought?

Presumably the final figure was based on race standardisation etc. combined with the Timefigure.

Yes... What they are saying is that they gave him a 7lb higher figure on form than on time (this is a big difference and requires justification, it's not the case that there would always be a 7lb difference), but then decided they couldn't justify the form figure and knocked a couple of pounds off to appease everyone. In this instance it looks as if they have dreamt up a number and when no one really believed it tried to fudge the issue.

 

[trackside528]

Yes... What they are saying is that they gave him a 7lb higher figure on form than on time (this is a big difference and requires justification, it's not the case that there would always be a 7lb difference), but then decided they couldn't justify the form figure and knocked a couple of pounds off to appease everyone. In this instance it looks as if they have dreamt up a number and when no one really believed it tried to fudge the issue.

A justification (written by our own David Johnson, no less) which can be found here:

http://betting.betfair.com/horse-ra...binger-rated-140---the-reasons-wh-270710.html

Having gone with a provisional 142, the comparatively poor Timefigure was the reason for lowering the overall figure to a 140.

 

[Harbinger]

Clearly just dreamt it up

 

[SteveM]

You will remember that Timeform ratings are 6lb higher than OR.

RPR seem to have the more sober view of the performance, as RPR is typically 5lb higher or so than OR.

I realise these numbers seem to be hardwired into you thinking Barry but be careful, they shouldn’t be treated as gospel and are misleading even as a rule of thumb. While it’s fair to say that TF figures are usually the highest, with typically RPRs next and ORs often (although not necessarily) lowest, it just is not the case that RPRs are “typically 5lb higher or so” than ORs. It is also not a uniform adjustment. Just glancing through the Timeform Global top 20. I can find comparables for 18 of them, broken down as follows:

5lb difference = 2
4lb difference = 1
3lb difference = 8
2lb difference = 3
1lb difference = 2
No difference = 2

Average = 2.55

There is in fact the same number that show no difference as show 5lb difference. It is nowhere near “5lb higher or so” and not a uniform adjustment.

The difference between TF and ORs also ranges between 3lb and half a stone. So again no uniform assumption can be made. The ratings are much closer together in some than others. Twice Over for example is 128 TF, 126 RPR, 125 OR, whereas Snow Fairy has the same TF rating of 128, with a 125 RPR and a 122 OR.

 

[SteveM]

A justification (written by our own David Johnson, no less) which can be found here:

http://betting.betfair.com/horse-ra...binger-rated-140---the-reasons-wh-270710.html

Having gone with a provisional 142, the comparatively poor Timefigure was the reason for lowering the overall figure to a 140.

This is exactly what I said he said earlier:

"The timefigure for Harbinger returned at 'only' 135, is still one of the best over the last 20 years, and it is because the timefigure is unable to fully back up the form rating that we are happier to rate Harbinger 140 for the time being rather 142".

 

[SteveM]

I don't want to put words into David J's mouth, but I'm sure I remember him saying when TF dropped him to 140 from 142 that it was because Timeform could not fully back up the form analysis and make it square with such a high rating, so were happier with 140 as the Time figure put him at "just 135". There seems to be a bit of extra credit here to me.

See this from earlier that I recalled David mentioning.

 

[SteveM]

Clearly just dreamt it up

...don't be snide Gareth it doesn't suit you. This is actually what I had already stated.

 

[Bruce_Savage]

What more could you want from a horse in terms of form wise?

He's beaten a Champion Sprinter, a Champion Miler and a Champion Stayer within the space of 18 months.

I didn't see Sea The Stars, Dancing Brave or the likes doing that within 18 months.

 

[Harbinger]

...don't be snide Gareth it doesn't suit you. This is actually what I had already stated.

But they didn't just "dream it up". They used race standardisation to come to an initial figure, and downgraded it slightly a couple of days later when they had more evidence from the time and sectional analysis. Disagree with it all you like, but at least they've explained their methodology and their grounds for the rating.

 

[Bar the Bull]

I realise these numbers seem to be hardwired into you thinking Barry but be careful, they shouldn’t be treated as gospel and are misleading even as a rule of thumb. While it’s fair to say that TF figures are usually the highest, with typically RPRs next and ORs often (although not necessarily) lowest, it just is not the case that RPRs are “typically 5lb higher or so” than ORs. It is also not a uniform adjustment. Just glancing through the Timeform Global top 20. I can find comparables for 18 of them, broken down as follows:

5lb difference = 2
4lb difference = 1
3lb difference = 8
2lb difference = 3
1lb difference = 2
No difference = 2

Average = 2.55

There is in fact the same number that show no difference as show 5lb difference. It is nowhere near “5lb higher or so” and not a uniform adjustment.

The difference between TF and ORs also ranges between 3lb and half a stone. So again no uniform assumption can be made. The ratings are much closer together in some than others. Twice Over for example is 128 TF, 126 RPR, 125 OR, whereas Snow Fairy has the same TF rating of 128, with a 125 RPR and a 122 OR.

Sorry, I meant to say Timeform high end ratings are typically 5-6lb higher than OR.

My mistake.

 

[Bar the Bull]

Of the top 18 horses (rated @ 128 or above by TF in 2011)
Horse Timeform---OR---RPR
Frankel---143---136---139
Black Caviar---135---132---133
Dream Ahead---133---126---129
Excelebration---133---126---129
Canford Cliffs---133---127---130
Cirrus Des Aigles---133---128---130
Rewilding---132---127---130
Danedream---132---128---128
Strong Suit---131---123---126
So You Think---132---126---129
Deacon Blues---130---120---125
Workforce---130---125---128
Americain---129---123---127
Goldikova---129---124---126
Cape Blanco---128---122---124
Hoof It---128---118---124
Snow Fairy---128---122---125
Twice Over---128---125---126
Average 131.5---125.4---128.2

6.1 diff between TF and OR
3.3 diff between TF and RPR…very similar to Steve’s….probably a few different horses included.

 

[Bar the Bull]

Steve, if you want fuel for your Timeform fire, surely Hoof It at 128 would be a good example? He looks ludicrously over-rated by Halifax.

 

[Ardross]

I wouldn't worry too much. They will be busting a gut to bump up Frankel's rating this coming season.

Well he carries a 7lb penalty every time he runs - so perhaps that should be factored in .