King George (Ascot)

Ardross said:
So that puts Harbinger 2lb above Nijinsky on Timeform's ratings . Give me strength .
Click to expand...

Even I am not old enough to remember Nijinsky.

However, perhaps you could point me to the ONE performance he put up that was better than an 11-length defeat of an Irish Derby winner, a 14¼-length defeat of a triple Arc second and a 14½-length defeat of a Hong Kong Vase winner.

And that is what Timeform has assessed in this instance: the ONE performance that is Harbinger's King George win.

They are not saying that the horse is greater than Nijinsky, more consistent than Nijinsky, more versatile than Nijinsky or prettier to look at than Nijinsky. They are saying that its best effort appears to be better than the best effort of Nijinsky's.

I think you will struggle to make a case for its being otherwise.
 
As I see it, a lot of what this comes down to is that some people would rather sit and wait for confirmation of a performance than credit an improving, impressive winner from good opposition, in a good (not brilliant) time with the sort of rating it would get in relative terms 9 times out of 10 if it happened at a lower level on a Wednesday afternoon.

Well, that's just fine and dandy. But it's not a stance that a handicapper - or an odds compiler, or a punter, or anyone else who needs to have an informed view of Harbinger's worth, now and in the future - is able to take. And those individuals should not be chucking out of the window the methods that stand them in good stead the other 364 days of the year, just because it seems easier to bottle it than to stick to one's guns.

IMHAHO. :-)
 
Last edited:
J Alfred Prufrock said:
Even I am not old enough to remember Nijinsky.

However, perhaps you could point me to the ONE performance he put up that was better than an 11-length defeat of an Irish Derby winner, a 14¼-length defeat of a triple Arc second and a 14½-length defeat of a Hong Kong Vase winner.

And that is what Timeform has assessed in this instance: the ONE performance that is Harbinger's King George win.

They are not saying that the horse is greater than Nijinsky, more consistent than Nijinsky, more versatile than Nijinsky or prettier to look at than Nijinsky. They are saying that its best effort appears to be better than the best effort of Nijinsky's.

I think you will struggle to make a case for its being otherwise.
Click to expand...

I would rate Nijinsky's 1970 King George win in a canter over Blakeney, Caliban and Karabas to be at least the equal of that performance of Harbinger.
 
J Alfred Prufrock said:
As I see it, a lot of what this comes down to is that some people would rather sit and wait for confirmation of a performance than credit an improving, impressive winner from good opposition, in a good (not brilliant) time with the sort of rating it would get in relative terms 9 times out of 10 if it happened at a lower level on a Wednesday afternoon.

Well, that's just fine and dandy. But it's not a stance that a handicapper - or an odds compiler, or a punter, or anyone else who needs to have an informed view of Harbinger's worth, now and in the future - is able to take. And those individuals should not be chucking out of the window the methods that stand them in good stead the other 364 days of the year, just because it seems easier to bottle it than to stick to one's guns.

IMHAHO. :-)
Click to expand...

but the opposition wasn't strong - because they all underperformed...you could have a field of 140 horses line up..but if they all run like 110 horses or worse then its not strong opposition..opposition is measured on the day..not on past achievement alone

strong opposition is when those beaten run close to their best..and a horse's best isn't when rolling around the course like a drunk..a la CB....at a speed over the last 3f of over a second slower than a 127 horse did previous year.

If i thought for one minute that CB ran to his best..i'd be joining in the celebrations..but if any judge here thinks a knackered horse running as slow as a boat in the straight..is good oppo and ..has run to his best..then some have a funny idea of running to their best.

If Timeform think him 140+..then thats up to them..and lets be honest..it will never be questioned in the future..because..

if he wins again..no matter what level he runs to..this run will still be argued his best

if he loses - it will be..ooh that big run must have taken it out of him..but he's still a 140 horse

so ..when a mark is put on a horse by Timeform..it stays there tbh..Hawk Wing?
 
Last edited:
Regardless of your own opinion, isn't it odd how the Americans rate horses ENTIRELY on time and we use pounds per lengths and other similar methods?
Click to expand...
I am analysing US racing at present - have been doing it for several months now - and I sure as hell don't think they have got it right.

Then again, I think any approach that ignores times completely is not getting it right either.

Only connect etc.

To EC.

You may be proved to be right that everything ran below form in the King George, but it would be rare. I have applied standardisation procedures to races for nearly 25 years now and the number of races that are out by the kind of degree you are suggesting is small.

I have also been doing sectional analysis for nearly as long. An example like Cape Blanco, and the others behind him, is not all that rare. It is what happens when horses get corpsed at the end of a race. One reason horses get corpsed is because they are asked to match strides with clearly superior opposition, which tells you something about the, umm, opposition.

Why did Cape Blanco end up getting corpsed and still not being passed by the others? I don't think they were all "out of form", I think they were all forced into running below form, to varying degrees, by a vastly superior rival.

You seem to be taking the view that if the horses behind Harbinger did not run to their very best - whatever that might be - then Harbinger's performance is worth little. Clearly there is a possibility - more than that I would suggest - that the horses behind Harbinger did not run to their very best but Harbinger's performance is worth plenty.
 
J Alfred Prufrock said:
Even I am not old enough to remember Nijinsky.

However, perhaps you could point me to the ONE performance he put up that was better than an 11-length defeat of an Irish Derby winner, a 14¼-length defeat of a triple Arc second and a 14½-length defeat of a Hong Kong Vase winner.

And that is what Timeform has assessed in this instance: the ONE performance that is Harbinger's King George win.

They are not saying that the horse is greater than Nijinsky, more consistent than Nijinsky, more versatile than Nijinsky or prettier to look at than Nijinsky. They are saying that its best effort appears to be better than the best effort of Nijinsky's.

I think you will struggle to make a case for its being otherwise.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter that he didn't do this or didn't do that - he beat who ran against him on the day, consistently. He won four classics. How do you know he only won by x lenghts in a race because he was pulling up, easing down, whatever? Piggott never did anything extravagant if he didn't have to. I do remember Nijinksy and if he came up against Harbinger at his best, he would have wiped the floor with him.
 
J Alfred Prufrock said:
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.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your reply but I realise full well that there is a difference (as I have made very clear on a number of occasions). What I am questioning is why the difference is in relative terms is so great with Harbinger against the respective assessments of other horses.

When those that are applying the method don't quite appear to know what they are doing the rest of us get a bit fidgety.
 
Last edited:
I think Cape Blanco run his race to be honest. He would have fallen in a heap like Workforce if he hadn't.

I would not have believed that Harbinger could achieve that rating prior to the race but I don't think there can be too much argument really looking at it in hindsight.
 
I appreciate your reply but I realise full well that there is a difference (as I have made very clear on a number of occasions). What I am questioning is why the difference is in relative terms is so great with Harbinger against the respective assessments of other horses.
Click to expand...

Perhaps you could help me to understand where you are coming from by letting me know what you make the respective differences between the level of ratings of Timeform, BHA and Racing Post.

Approximately will be okay.
 
J Alfred Prufrock said:
Perhaps you could help me to understand where you are coming from by letting me know what you make the respective differences between the level of ratings of Timeform, BHA and Racing Post.

Approximately will be okay.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the point. The relative variance is so inconsistent when you look at how it is applied to different individuals that people are bound to question the outcome.

Timeform usually tend to be 2-3lb higher than RPRs these days (although it is very difficult to be precise) in arrived at figures. With RPRs perhaps edging out ORs. However, it can be like musical chairs with this order turned upside down on occasion. While I realise that different agencies are entitled to rate according to their own methodologies, this smacks at not only being at variance with each other, but even more worryingly being at variance with themselves.

I'm not saying that it's an easy business (a host of factors come into play). However, my initial reaction that 142 was too high has already been acknowledged as such by the organisation that set the rating in the first place (and it may well have further to fall).

Perhaps you can give us further guidance on the exact methodology adopted by Timeform, as you have intimate insight to this? The rest of us can only go by what they state in the Black Book and other such statements of method.
 
Ratings of individual horses vary from one organisation to another, as you would expect, else there would be no point in there being more than one organisation!

Nonetheless, the average differences for mature horses are pretty consistent. TF 100 = RP 98 = BHA 92, give or take a pound.

The fact that the BHA is more like 6 below than 8 below at the top level seems to come down to methodology again.

Speaking of methodology, I do not represent Timeform, but I learnt my trade there and know that they have taken on board some of the refinements to handicapping I have made in recent years.

An explanation of how Timeform addresses the issue can be found in articles on the company's site (http://www.timeform.com/display_articles.asp?page=About_Timeform.asp) though those articles are nearly 10 years old now, and I wrote a mini-series on handicapping (http://betting.betfair.com/horse-ra...your-own-ratings-trust-your-own-r-200710.html) and on time analysis (http://betting.betfair.ie/irish-rac...lands-on-time-analysis-part-three-080409.html) on betting.betfair.com.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamla Stan
Regardless of your own opinion, isn't it odd how the Americans rate horses ENTIRELY on time and we use pounds per lengths and other similar methods?


All their tracks are the same. I'm pretty sure even I'd be a time punter if I was a septic
Click to expand...

Beat me to it. And the going is far less variable too. Also races tend to run more at a certain pace rather than tactically which is possibly down to the tight configurations perhaps?

on the subject of times and tactics etc...

Seb Coe's best races were surely his olympic and world championship gold medals. But were any of them run in record times? They werent his "fastest" races (and i think one gold was particular "slow"), but he still beat the very best field
 
J Alfred Prufrock said:
Ratings of individual horses vary from one organisation to another, as you would expect, else there would be no point in there being more than one organisation!

Nonetheless, the average differences for mature horses are pretty consistent. TF 100 = RP 98 = BHA 92, give or take a pound.

The fact that the BHA is more like 6 below than 8 below at the top level seems to come down to methodology again.

Speaking of methodology, I do not represent Timeform, but I learnt my trade there and know that they have taken on board some of the refinements to handicapping I have made in recent years.

An explanation of how Timeform addresses the issue can be found in articles on the company's site (http://www.timeform.com/display_articles.asp?page=About_Timeform.asp) though those articles are nearly 10 years old now, and I wrote a mini-series on handicapping (http://betting.betfair.com/horse-ra...your-own-ratings-trust-your-own-r-200710.html) and on time analysis (http://betting.betfair.ie/irish-rac...lands-on-time-analysis-part-three-080409.html) on betting.betfair.com.
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the trouble to reply. This is pretty much what I thought (apart from the BHA being particularly low relative to the others). I'm blocked from these links on the computer I'm working from this afternoon, but I'm familiar with Timeform methodology (certainly that of 10 years ago) from what is published. I thought you might know something that we're not privy to. I still don't see how such a large discrepancy can come about for Harbinger and not for others, but I'll look through these links on another computer when I get a chance. I appreciate your response.
 
Last edited:
Hamm said:
Hence there is practically no difference between the BHA rating and the Timeform rating ..
Click to expand...

But why does this only work in respect of Harbinger when ratings are so much closer for other individuals? It's like this sequence has just been arrived at to suit.
 
Many thanks for the links, Pru.

J Alfred Prufrock said:
Ratings of individual horses vary from one organisation to another, as you would expect, else there would be no point in there being more than one organisation!

Nonetheless, the average differences for mature horses are pretty consistent. TF 100 = RP 98 = BHA 92, give or take a pound.

The fact that the BHA is more like 6 below than 8 below at the top level seems to come down to methodology again.

Speaking of methodology, I do not represent Timeform, but I learnt my trade there and know that they have taken on board some of the refinements to handicapping I have made in recent years.

An explanation of how Timeform addresses the issue can be found in articles on the company's site (http://www.timeform.com/display_articles.asp?page=About_Timeform.asp) though those articles are nearly 10 years old now, and I wrote a mini-series on handicapping (http://betting.betfair.com/horse-ra...your-own-ratings-trust-your-own-r-200710.html) and on time analysis (http://betting.betfair.ie/irish-rac...lands-on-time-analysis-part-three-080409.html) on betting.betfair.com.
Click to expand...
 
Regarding Seb Coe and athletics times, my friend James Willoughby and I had it off BIG TIME on Dieter Baumann in the 1992 Olympics 5000m final in the anticipation that the short-running German would get a race run to suit. And he did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dieter_Baumann

Back then, we thought sectionals were easy. :-)

Coe's wins in slow times did not detract from his standing as a great.

But world records - in this day and age anyway - are always broken by greats. And not by Dieter Baumanns.
 
Thats true, but you see where i am coming from? Doesnt take a great time to win a great race etc etc

And yes. Coe was brilliant.
 
clivex said:
Thats true, but you see where i am coming from? Doesnt take a great time to win a great race etc etc

And yes. Coe was brilliant.
Click to expand...

i doubt anyone would argue with that Clive...but what people don't seem to get is that when a race is evenly run..if a decent figure isn't produced then the winner can be marked down..JUST on time..basically the horse has had every opportunity to produce a fast time and has failed

when a horse fails to produce a fast time in a slowly run race..then it doesn't mean he's not a good horse..because obviously in those circumstances its not possible to pull back the time lost early..some people think it is possible though..again how they think that is possible i don't know.

i been reading that thread on the other board and tbh how Pru has refrained from fully replying to some of the nonsense spouted on it..is beyond me..and shows great restraint by him :D
 
Thats fair enough. Good explanations. But i still find the going factor the big concern.

I think time is perhaps an interesting element when used properly.

But if its the holy grail, why are you both potless? :confused:
 
Back
Top