Frankel WTR rating

Bar the Bull said:
Last year there was a 5.3lb difference between Timeform and World Rankings for horses with TF of 127 or greater.

The difference between RPR and Timeform was 3.3lb
Click to expand...

Although these are only averages. Some don’t conform to anything like this and are back to front in some examples – Hawk Wing being a case in point.

Whereas Frankel say shows a 7lb difference from OR (lowest) to TF (highest):

Horse TF, RPR, OR
Frankel 143, 139, 136

Hawk Wing shows just a 3lb difference, with his OR of 137 (WTR adjusted to 133) actually higher than both the RPR and Timeform.

Horse TF, RPR, OR
Hawk Wing 136, 134, 137 (WTR adjusted 133)

So it is not simply the case of using the average to make a standard adjustment.
 
Last edited:
Not sure what point you are trying to make Steve. Of course there will be individual examples when the difference is higher or lower than the average, otherwise there'd be no point whatsoever the individual comapnies compiling their own ratings and RPR and Timeform cards would be of little use to the handicap punter when the ratings would have everything co-top rated!

A grasp of the levels of the different organisations will help you to understand the different views taken, For example the difference in the Frankel ratings suggest that Timeform are of the opinion that Frankel is better than the BHA have rated it, yet the Hawk Wing ratings show that the BHA think Hawk Wing was better than Timeform did, but not simply by a margin of 1lb, but more like by 5lb or 6lb.
 
Last edited:
DJ
It's fair enough different raters having differing views, what isn't nearly as clear is why some need a different scale?
 
It's not a case of needing a different scale as such, and I can't really comment on the levels of the BHA/RPR other that what information about them is in the public domain. I've sort of covered my views on this at the start of this thread, where I think we have a relatively large disparity between the figures on the WTR recorded for Dancing Brave and Frankel, and not because of a belief that Dancing Brave was a 6 lb better horse but because of different handicapping techniques. Phil Smith acknowledged this in an appearance on RUK, but referred to it as 'realism' rather than slippage.

I agree it's not an entirely satisfactory position for the fan to be in when comparing all these different sets of ratings, but I'm sot sure what the solution is. As long as one organisations ratings remain directly comparable and on the same level as they have always been I don't see it as a big issue, it's when a rating of 141 from 1986 now isn't worth 141 that I have a problem.

Time for a rehandicap of all the best horses over the last 25 years in the WTR so Frankel can be afforded the credit and recognition in historical terms that his 2011 performances deserve imo. Alternatively, buy Racehorses of 2011 to see him get it instead! :lol:
 
SteveM said:
Although these are only averages. Some don’t conform to anything like this and are back to front in some examples – Hawk Wing being a case in point.

Whereas Frankel say shows a 7lb difference from OR (lowest) to TF (highest):

Horse TF, RPR, OR
Frankel 143, 139, 136

Hawk Wing shows just a 3lb difference, with his OR of 137 (WTR adjusted to 133) actually higher than both the RPR and Timeform.

Horse TF, RPR, OR
Hawk Wing 136, 134, 137 (WTR adjusted 133)

So it is not simply the case of using the average to make a standard adjustment.
Click to expand...

Of course some agencies over-rate or under-rate horses. What way (other than adjusting for the average difference) do you suggest to see if TF or RPR or OR is wrong?
 
Bar the Bull said:
Of course some agencies over-rate or under-rate horses. What way (other than adjusting for the average difference) do you suggest to see if TF or RPR or OR is wrong?
Click to expand...

Yes of course they do. But the way it is beginning to sound on here is that if you simply add a magical number to one rating or subtract it from another you can gauge what another rating agency should be making. That would be a dangerous (or at least over-simplistic) way of looking at it.
 
Back
Top