Frankel WTR rating

Euronymous said:
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.
Click to expand...

fair comment..but not one word leading up to the race..over a period of months..at any time that they were hugely impressed by having one of the best horses in 40 years in their stable

was it a secret..doesn't Stoutey know a great horse..its funny coz when Henry gets one he knows and tells us all just how good he is

it doesn't ring true to me...the stable that had Shergar don't know they have a top notcher
 
EC1 said:
fair comment..but not one word leading up to the race..over a period of months..at any time that they were hugely impressed by having one of the best horses in 40 years in their stable

was it a secret..doesn't Stoutey know a great horse..its funny coz when Henry gets one he knows and tells us all just how good he is

it doesn't ring true to me...the stable that had Shergar don't know they have a top notcher
Click to expand...

A few things to keep in mind:

a) Stoute is the last trainer I'd expect to tell us all just how good a horse is beforehand.

b) Stoute is on record as saying that Harbinger did little at home.

c) Stoute once didn't realise he had a Derby winner in the stable a month before the race.

d) Given how much everyone complains about hype, including yourself, it would be rather unfair if a particularly high rating couldn't be awarded to a horse because he hadn't been sufficiently hyped.
 
"A 140 rating puts Harbinger in the top dozen performers that Timeform has rated, alongside Dancing Brave, Shergar, Vaguely Noble and Sea The Stars, and behind only Sea-Bird (145), Brigadier Gerard and Tudor Minstrel (144), Abernant, Ribot and Windy City(142) and Mill Reef (141)"

IIRC, none of these others made the sudden and marked improvement that the raters would have us believe Harbinger did, and all showed a consistency at the top level that Harbinger never achieved.
That inordinate improvement, and that it was (seemingly) totally unexpected by those closest to him, suggests that what looked great visually was made to fit by the raters, and neither logic, or a closer analysis of the form, supports it.
Imo, of course.
 
I think that's an unfair comparison. 7 of those were Classic winners. Of the rest, 2 won Arcs at 3, one won the Middle Park at 2 and the other won the Gimcrack at 2. None of them were late-developers like Harbinger; they were all starting from a higher base (including Frankel, who would now be on that list).

Consistency at the top level might give you more confidence in a the merit of a single performance, but a lack of it (especially, as in Harbinger's case, a lack of opportunity for it) doesn't mean that that performance should be discounted. I'm sure neither of us would put Rock of Gibraltar in that company, despite his incredible consistency at the top level. Indeed, I don't even think Harbinger belongs in that company except in the really quite narrow context of the greatest single performances by a racehorse.
 
Bar the Bull said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes my averages virtually match yours despite a small difference in the list constituents. For instance Cape Blanco didn’t get into mine as I was using a RPR list that went down to 125. The other numbers check out with the slight exception that I’ve got a TF of 131 for So You Think whereas you’ve got 132.

Horse TF, RPR, OR
Frankel 143, 139, 136
Black Caviar 135, 133, 132
Canford Cliffs 133, 130, 127
Cirrus Des Aigles 133, 130, 128
Dream Ahead 133, 129, 126
Excelebration 133, 129, 126
Danedream 132, 128, 128
Rewilding 132, 130, 127
So You Think 131, 129, 126
Strong Suit 131, 126, 123
Deacon Blues 130, 125, 120
Rocket Man 130, 127, 125
Workforce 130, 128, 125
Americain 129, 127, 123
Goldikova 129, 126, 124
Hay List 128, 127, 122
Snow Fairy 128, 125, 122
Twice Over 128, 126, 125

Average 131.5, 128.5, 125.8

3.0 difference between TF and RPR
6.0 difference between TF and OR

So you are right the Harbinger figures of 140, 135 and 135 are pretty much in line with this test, unless you wanted to say that the TF RPR difference of 5 is greater than the average of 3 (and therefore either the TF figure should be a little lower, or the RPR a little higher). Then again the TF/OR difference of 5 is a little less than the average of 6 (as you pointed out earlier).
 
Last edited:
Deacon Blues is one of the best sprinters we've seen in the last 15 years.

Go take a look at some of his figures produced especially at Newbury.

I'd back Deacon Blues every time next year, I'd back him to beat Black Caviar by a good 5 lengths.

The horse is SERIOUS SERIOUS SERIOUS MONSTER.
 
Euronymous said:
Whoever does the sprinters seriously needs sacking.
Click to expand...

What's the beef with Deacon Blues' rating? Impossible to rate him lower than around 128, and his demolition job at the Curragh may have been against second raters, but the time was little short of astounding given he got just the one tap to go clear.

Edit: sorry - perhaps you mean it should be higher? Maybe so.
 
Last edited:
Gareth Flynn said:
A few things to keep in mind:

a) Stoute is the last trainer I'd expect to tell us all just how good a horse is beforehand.

b) Stoute is on record as saying that Harbinger did little at home.

c) Stoute once didn't realise he had a Derby winner in the stable a month before the race.

d) Given how much everyone complains about hype, including yourself, it would be rather unfair if a particularly high rating couldn't be awarded to a horse because he hadn't been sufficiently hyped.
Click to expand...

at the time of the rating..i put lots of stuff up on here re why i thought the rating was too high..the sectionals compared with the previous season alone showed the rating to be too high etc...can't be arsed with going there again..but i do think they would have known about it

yes i can also remember Swinburn picking the wrong horse about 3 times in one season in the 80's in big races for stoute..but they didn't have one of the best horses from the last 40 years then

basically we are to believe stoute is a bit clueless..which is a possible of course
 
rorydelargy said:
What's the beef with Deacon Blues' rating? Impossible to rate him lower than around 128.
Click to expand...

Timeform have been rating sprinters based on the races they win rather than the form they achieved in doing so for quite awhile. Out of the blue a seasoned handicapper like Markhab suddenly gets 125 even though he'd never run to 120 before simply because he wins a Group 3 version of the Sprint Cup.
 
Golly Gee the Harbinger Wars have been going full pelt since my last post. My Mum always said I could cause a fight in an empty room :lol:

A couple of points I would like to make:

First don't think for one minute Ryan Moore never had a choice.

Top owners are the most understanding people on earth and very few will not respect the decision of man like Ryan Moore and hope he's wrong. Of course he could have ridden Harbinger if they thought he could beat Workforce.

Harbinger had beaten Age of Aquarius just over 1 length and Duncan in a Group 3 who got stuffed both sides of his meeting with Harbinger.

No way was Ryan Moore going to chose Harbinger over Workforce who had just won the Epsom Derby by 7 lengths.

On the day there wasn't 4 bananas to a banana about Harbinger on the day and as far as the racing world were concerned it was Workforce's at 8/11 to take.

He nver ran any sort of race which happens leaving Harbinger to beat Cape Blanco.

Cape Blanco was quite a classy horse which allowed him to just get home in another one of those poor Irish Derby's we are treated to every year.
but when AOB was asked what he thought of his chances in the Arc the first thing he said was he didn't think he stayed well enough to win.

He did run one more time at 12 furlong as a 4yo but scraped home again by a nose from a monkey that wouldn't have blowin wind up Harbinger's backside.


It's safe to say Cape Blanco's worst trip was 12 furlongs and as far as Youmzain goes I hardly need to tell you how unreliabale a yardstick he can be when not running in the Arc.

The truth of the matter is the rae fell right into Harbinger's lap and that one run took him from being a 123 horse to a grosssly infalted rating he simply did not deserve,

I thought he was a cracking horse and backed him several times and even claimed he was a certainty for the GV when he got stuffed but I'm under no illusions about how good he was or wasn't.

As far as SMS goes he's going to agree with anything the media, Timeform or the BHA hadicapper says if it helps the horses repuation. If fact he'd tell you he was the best he ever had and would have eaten Sea Bird II for breakfast if he thought it would increse his shed value.

We were sold a lie by people who add up the numbers in front of them and print because sometimes their figures rule them rather thean them ruling their fiugures. IMVHO
 
If Workforce had beaten Cape Blanco in exactly the same manner and Harbinger had run no sort of race there would be no debate about a 140 rating.

As for the betting, I backed Harbinger and thought he had a favourite's chance. Moore probably thought it was 50/50. Which means you have to go with the Derby winner.
 
Last edited:
Euronymous said:
If Workforce had beaten Cape Blanco in exactly the same manner and Harbinger had run no sort of race there would be no debate about a 140 rating.

As for the betting, I backed Harbinger and thought he had a favourite's chance. Moore probably thought it was 50/50. Which means you have to go with the Derby winner.
Click to expand...

thats the knackered, drunken ,swerving about CB who clearly ran his race:rolleyes:

a horse that relished 10f at the top level

if beating a non stayer is worth 140 then fair play to you

like i said..i wrote reams about the sectionals compared to the previous year..which showed the race was very similar to the previous years edition.

people get sucked in by winning distances when others run below their best..its these type of races that demand more analysis than others to come to a conclusion..those too lazy to do that analysis are going to live in ignorance of the true worth of a piece of form
 
Last edited:
CB was close to or at 130 over 10f but stayed a mile and a half - though he wasn't quite as good over that trip. Harbinger gave him a 20lb beating that day and rating CB at around 120 for the race still means he ran 10lb or so below his best.
 
Last edited:
Euronymous said:
CB was close to or at 130 over 10f but stayed a mile and a half - though he wasn't quite as good over that trip. Harbinger gave him a 20lb beating that day and rating CB at around 120 for the race still means he ran 10lb or so below his best.
Click to expand...

CB ran nowt like a 120 ..he was totally legless..he ran way below form..a handicapper ran the last part of the race faster

but if you believe he ran a 120..fair play to you.
 
Euronymous said:
If Workforce had beaten Cape Blanco in exactly the same manner and Harbinger had run no sort of race there would be no debate about a 140 rating.

As for the betting, I backed Harbinger and thought he had a favourite's chance. Moore probably thought it was 50/50. Which means you have to go with the Derby winner.
Click to expand...

Actually Workforce did beat Cape Blanco a couple of months later but not by 11 lengths, he beat him 22 lengths, again over 12 furlongs .

So by your reckoning Workforce should be rated 152 which would make him the highest rated horse of all time.:lol: Now I'm taking the ****.

With all repsect the fact you backed Harbinger is meaninless and doesn't alter the fact the fast majority of racing pundits punters trainers Jockeys and would be John McCriricks thought Workforce was a steering job.

Time after time we see these races where something look like it's the next coming and the media jump on it like a ton of bricks and the bookies follow suit.

Cast your mind back to the Nell Gwynn whe Luca's Fantasia wasn't even considered as a serious 1000 Guneas prospect.

She stormed home in the same style as Harbinger winning by 7 lengths and was immeditaly the meida was all over her like a rash and the bookies made 11/10 Joint fav, from gawd knows what price, with Rainbow View who was under the same ownership.

Like Harbinger she beat very little but as far as the media was concerned the sun shone out of her backside and she was a wonder filly despite the fact the Gosden horse had beat her without batting an eylid when they met beforehand.

The so called wonder filly Fantasia went to France, lost and then lost 14 of her next 17 races her 3 wins coming in Listed races.

Just further proof that one race doesn't make you a champion.
 
Last edited:
Tanlic said:
Time after time we see these races where something look like it's the next coming and the media jump on it like a ton of bricks and the bookies follow suit.

Cast your mind back to the Nell Gwynn whe Luca's Fantasia wasn't even considered as a serious 1000 Guneas prospect.

She stormed home in the same style as Harbinger winning by 7 lengths and was immeditaly the meida was all over her like a rash and the bookies made 11/10 Joint fav, from gawd knows what price, with Rainbow View who was under the same ownership.

Like Harbinger she beat very little but as far as the media was concerned the sun shone out of her backside and she was a wonder filly despite the fact the Gosden horse had beat her without batting an eylid when they met beforehand.

The so called wonder filly Fantasia went to France, lost and then lost 14 of her next 17 races her 3 wins coming in Listed races.

Just further proof that one race doesn't make you a champion.
Click to expand...


Harbinger wasn't a champion but the level of form he showed that day was off the scale.
And the 1000 Guineas comparison is a poor one. It's a race that can be won by almost handicap quality fillies in poor years so anything half decent coming out of a spring trial is bound to be hyped.
 
Tanlic said:
With all repsect the fact you backed Harbinger is meaninless and doesn't alter the fact the fast majority of racing pundits punters trainers Jockeys and would be John McCriricks thought Workforce was a steering job.
Click to expand...

You mean sheep. Only mugs take any notice of what the majority of these "experts" say.
 
Last edited:
There's some serious reaching going on here. Harbinger isn't a 140 horse because pundits didn't think he'd win the King George? Or because a 1000 Guineas trial winner was once over-rated by the media?

EC's view of the sectionals is interesting and well-taken, but again, it's not like Timeform didn't take sectional data into account, nor do I agree with the idea that Cape Blanco was "legless" in the closing stages. Tired, sure, but if you watch the closing stages he actually responds late on when Youmzain starts to get close.
 
I don't think there is a clear answer to the Harbinger rating

My overall speed rating was very good for H...not off the scale..and the sectionals compared to previous years race were useful imo..but again not fully conclusive..what is tbh?

i do think that when horses are rated off others its important..the others.. were able to run to a level we can rely on..i'm not sure that was the case here..i think CB was a 10/11f horse who always gave his all that season..he kept going even when he had had enough..always admired that quality about him
 
Back
Top