King George (Ascot)

Even with only two round course races, you can come up with a realistic maximum figure for the King George. After all, there's a clear minimum that Harbinger has to beat the handicap winner by in order to justify a speed rating in line with his form rating.

Let's say Yashrid has run to a new OR of 86, which I think is a fair mark give or take a pound or two either way. He carried 9st 7lbs, or 133lbs, as a 3yo, giving him an effective weight of 145lbs after weight for age is factored in (12lbs using the official scale).

Harbinger, as a 'mature' 4yo, also carried 133lbs.

So, Harbinger ran the King George 5.41s faster than Yashrid whilst 'getting' 12lbs.

So just convert 5.41s into pounds, subtract 12, and add it on to 86.

My conversion goes as follows:

5.41s = 32.46 lengths (1s = 6 lengths)

32.46 lengths = 43.28 lbs (1 length = 1.33 lbs over 12f)

43.28 - 12 + 86 = ~ 117 lbs

Not too hot, is it?

Even using a higher poundage over 12f, say 1.5 lbs per length, it still only comes out at around 123 (EC's figure, I think?).

So, using the ORs at least, in order to get Harbinger's speed figure to match his new OR of 135 (which is a perfectly reasonable rating based, as it is, on simple benchmark form), you would either need to hugely over-rate the horses in the handicap, or use a very high poundage.

For me, the final time of the race is the only thing about the performance that doesn't hugely impress. It was jaw-dropping to watch.
 
I think with time ratings its a case of really good is worth noting perhaps but so so is a case of cest la vie. There are too many fcators involved which cannot be measured accurately enough for my liking. It surely takes only a marginal movement in the going to affect the time substantially but at same time no one seems to be able to get a grip on true going measurements. not just going but also nature of ground too
 
Gareth Flynn said:
Even with only two round course races, you can come up with a realistic maximum figure for the King George. After all, there's a clear minimum that Harbinger has to beat the handicap winner by in order to justify a speed rating in line with his form rating.

Let's say Yashrid has run to a new OR of 86, which I think is a fair mark give or take a pound or two either way. He carried 9st 7lbs, or 133lbs, as a 3yo, giving him an effective weight of 145lbs after weight for age is factored in (12lbs using the official scale).

Harbinger, as a 'mature' 4yo, also carried 133lbs.

So, Harbinger ran the King George 5.41s faster than Yashrid whilst 'getting' 12lbs.

So just convert 5.41s into pounds, subtract 12, and add it on to 86.

My conversion goes as follows:

5.41s = 32.46 lengths (1s = 6 lengths)

32.46 lengths = 43.28 lbs (1 length = 1.33 lbs over 12f)

43.28 - 12 + 86 = ~ 117 lbs

Not too hot, is it?

Even using a higher poundage over 12f, say 1.5 lbs per length, it still only comes out at around 123 (EC's figure, I think?).

So, using the ORs at least, in order to get Harbinger's speed figure to match his new OR of 135 (which is a perfectly reasonable rating based, as it is, on simple benchmark form), you would either need to hugely over-rate the horses in the handicap, or use a very high poundage.

For me, the final time of the race is the only thing about the performance that doesn't hugely impress. It was jaw-dropping to watch.
Click to expand...

I suspect I'll come to a similar conclusion when I get the form book instalment in and have more to go on.

There is another angle which hasn't been explored.

I'm a firm believer in there being more than one race within a race. Often in conditions races you get low-rated horses finishing quite close to higher-rated ones. In the same way, when certain riders are riding to certain tactics, a group within a race will have their own little event while others will have theirs. I just wonder if something like that happened the other day.

As others have said, we'll need to see who comes out and does what.

What if Hawk Wing had never run again after the Lockinge?
 
What if Hawk Wing had never run again after the Lockinge?
Click to expand...

In effect, he didn't.

Even his greatest detractors - and there were some who lost a sense of proportion every bit as much as those who thought the horse was the second coming - surely would not claim that his subsequent unplaced run at Ascot reflected his ability.

Where Or When (beaten 11 lengths into second at Newbury) did run four times subsequently, however, finishing no nearer than third.
 
J Don't imagine that it has been arrived at off the cuff said:
With the greatest respect for your efforts and the efforts of others like you, I think people are entitled to question ratings when you can drive a bus through the gap from highest to lowest from the different ratings organisations.

You may well say that it is comparing apples with pears, but this isn’t good enough. To take Montjeu as an example his ratings varied only slightly between the respective ratings organisations 138-141 was considered his mark with the consensus settling in the high 130s.

When we get a 142 which is almost immediately cut to 140 and then an OR of 135, aren’t we entitled to ask questions?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Desert Orchid said:
Coming back to Hawk Wing, yes I went very high that day and felt 100% justified in so doing.

As the discussion on this forum evolved, so did the theory that the way a race is run can affect every runner bar possibly the winner. I am now of the opinion that it is possible that all bar the winner ran below form. Hawk Wing was nowhere near as far ahead of Lindop on times that day as he should have been and Harbinger was nowhere near as far ahead of the winner of the next race over c&d as he should have been.

It might also explain why Roberto was able to beat Brigadier Gerard at York while the Brigadier was seemingly as far ahead of the usual suspects as his form entitled him to be. I only know one person who reckons Roberto should have been rated above Brigadier Gerard overall.

Dahlia shot clear in her first King George but subsequent analysis, which wasn't in vogue at the time, showed that she was the only one to get the fractions right on the day. she wasn't any less a horse the following year and didn't win by anywhere near as far off a more even pace.

If Moore had chosen Harbinger over Workforce I might have been swayed into a monstrous rating but Moore seems pretty certain that Workforce is the better of the two. What would that make Workforce?

As for the ratings bodies, the BHB is conservative although, as pointed out elsewhere, the closer you get to the top of the scale the closer they are to being accurate. It's why in everyday racing it's easy to spot horses that are 'well in' in handicaps.

Coming back to Hawk Wing, let's not forget that this non-stayer was something like twelve lengths clear of the next horse in his Derby. On his day, he was very good but I accepted long ago that he wasn't the superbeast I thoguht he was after Newbury.
Click to expand...

...You're preaching to the converted.

I agreed with you at the time and still do. Harbinger is similar in some respects, but I feel their are grounds for questioning the apparent very high value (virtually unprecedented) of his KG performance. Am I alone in recognising Montjeu's KG (for example) as much superior to this one?
 
Last edited:
SteveM said:
With the greatest respect for your efforts and the efforts of others like you, I think people are entitled to question ratings when you can drive a bus through the gap from highest to lowest from the different ratings organisations.

You may well say that it is comparing apples with pears, but this isn’t good enough. To take Montjeu as an example his ratings varied only slightly between the respective ratings organisations 138-141 was considered his mark with the consensus settling in the high 130s.

When we get a 142 which is almost immediately cut to 140 and then an OR of 135, aren’t we entitled to ask questions?
Click to expand...

Steve, I don't think you have understood.

Do you know what an OR of 135 equates to on the Timeform scale? You cannot "drive a bus" through the difference.

And, as I stated previously, yes I think you are entitled to ask questions. I would not have it any other way.

But you should be aware that a rating like this will have been arrived at by reference to things like race standards, first-5 standards, analysis of overall times, analysis of sectionals and after input from someone at the course, all of which have been tested against results over a long period of time.

The reason why the rating was revised from 142 to 140 is that a provisional one was released before this process had been completed.

It would appear from some of the remarks made in the Racing Post and by BHA handicappers that their approaches are far more basic. I think the onus is on them to prove otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Agree with all of that.

There are a number of misunderstandings on this thread …

If anything, the BHA rating of 135 is in absolute terms higher than the Timeform 140. I don't see any bus, more a pound or at the most two.

Harbinger having an individual performance rating higher than anything Sea the Stars achieved does not say he is a better horse.
 
Timeform have published their reasons behind the 140 rating here.

I think we know where we all stand, and it's unlikely that we are going to reach a universal agreement on this and we've all get better things to be doing than continuing to rehash the same arguments.
 
Hamm said:
Agree with all of that.

There are a number of misunderstandings on this thread …

If anything, the BHA rating of 135 is in absolute terms higher than the Timeform 140. I don't see any bus, more a pound or at the most two.

Harbinger having an individual performance rating higher than anything Sea the Stars achieved does not say he is a better horse.
Click to expand...

his having a higher rating is highly debateable imo - this is a cracking race for us all to flex our muscles..what a conundrum to solve :cool:

we'll all have to wait and see - if i am wrong i'll throw the hands up straight away

lets be fair as well..if H is a 140+ horse he should romp the Arc no probs
 
davidjohnson said:
Timeform have published their reasons behind the 140 rating here.

I think we know where we all stand, and it's unlikely that we are going to reach a universal agreement on this and we've all get better things to be doing than continuing to rehash the same arguments.
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced by it after reading it

I firmly believe that only H ran to his form..the overall time is not exceptional..its bloody good at about 132..buts its not in line with the visual impression of an absolute rout..he's routed a lot of underperforming horses..the overall time shows that and the sectionals show that CB was slowing at an alarming rate for a reason we don't know. CB would have been well beaten in last years KG when viewing the sectionals and i doubt very much that Conduit would have been rated 140..even though its clear that he would been well ahead of CB too.
 
Last edited:
Cape Blanco was slowing because he was too close to the hot pace early doors.
Last year's race was run differently so stating Conduit would have beaten him and beaten him well is pure guesswork. I could tell Harbinger was top class after the Hardwicke and I didn't need a stopwatch to confirm it, just twenty odd years of punting experience.
 
Last edited:
Euronymous said:
Cape Blanco was slowing because he was too close to the hot pace early doors.
Last year's race was run differently so stating Conduit would have beaten him and beaten him well is pure guesswork. I could tell Harbinger was top class after the Hardwicke and I didn't need a stopwatch to confirm it, just twenty odd years of punting experience.
Click to expand...

the pace wasn't too hot though - it looked like that initially- until you see the sectionals..which you clearly haven't read or don't comprehend..Conduit ran a similar sectional to CB up to 9f..it was actually near on even pace..thats why H was still full of running

last years race was far more strongly run by those ahead of Conduit at the 9f marker

yours is the guess-work..mine is the analysis
 
Last edited:
But you're comparing times from different years when the ground conditions weren't the same and you had different field sizes and so Conduit would have had more cover than Cape Blanco. Too many variables for me.
 
the difference between us is that I am willing to accept an argument..if its based on logic..you on the other hand just want to rubbish any view that differs from yours..comments like the one liner above is a typical rubbishing comment from you.

constructive argument is lifeblood on here..shoving a size nine on somebody is a different sort of debating

many threads on here I don't follow or understand or know the people involved..so i keep away from commenting..if you can't follow what i have laid out..then do same as me..don't comment unless its constructive
 
Euronymous said:
But you're comparing times from different years when the ground conditions weren't the same and you had different field sizes and so Conduit would have had more cover than Cape Blanco. Too many variables for me.
Click to expand...

I have removed the going from the equation if you read the posts properly

i understand many people on racing forums don't like time analysis..its somehow anorak or puffy in some way..whereas form rating is somehow macho and acceptable

there is room for both..and both have a part to play

i don't want to fall out with you over this..i'm pretty used to your way of posting by now..but you are missing stuff here thats surprised me to be honest..keep an open mind for goodness sake Euro..you coming across like some time figure bashing nasty with me:)
 
Last edited:
Euronymous said:
Too many variables. End of.
Click to expand...

how many variables are there in this race when it comes to assessing who has..if any..run to form?

i would say a dam sight more than breaking the race up time wise.

you can't say that any horse here has run to form or by what %..just looking at who beats who by how far...thats a million million variables trying that method
 
Last edited:
Back
Top