King George VI And QE Stakes

I reckon the King George result must have been a bit of a bastard to rate. There's no middle-ground to take; either you go with your previous rating for Papal Bull (which will probably keep the winning rating down) or you take the view that the 9 lengths back the the third actually means something.
 
Can anyone tell me what previous King George winners were rated by Timeform? Especially Dylan Thomas, Alamshar, Azamour and Doyen.

Thanks,
Andrew
 
On race standards over the last 5 years, the King George could be rated anywhere between 132-135 for the winner. On a 'going' day is Papal Bull a better horse than Youmzain? In my opinion yes he is. Given Youmzain's 130 rating, I don't think 132$ is at all out of context against other middle-distance horses.

Ratings run to in race, not necessarily a Timeform Annaual rating for the horses you mentioned Andrew are Dylan Thomas 132, Alamshar 133, Azamour 130, Doyen 132.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
I reckon the King George result must have been a bit of a bastard to rate.
Click to expand...

The RP went 128/127/113+/111/110

To me it looks like they`ve rated it through Red Rock Canyon on 111 which is just about as good as he is (probably flattered in the Irish Champion last year.) Timeform may have rated it through Ask who was given 110 by the RP but obviously more from the Halifax firm. 110 is somewhat below his best, but its obvious to me that the animal didn`t run anywhere near his true form.
 
Keeping strictly to the King George, to say Papal Bull's performance is better than Azamour's, equal to Dylan Thomas and Doyen's and just a pound inferior to Alamshar's must be wrong?

Alamshar's performance against a strong field was magnificent, and worthy of repeated watching. I, despite being wrong beforehand, think Duke of Marmalade could turn out to be something quite special. But, he did not equal the performance of Alamshar, and Papal Bull did certainly not do as I just described above.
 
As David suggests, I reckon race standardization came into it and such a yawning gap back to the third is rather unusual in a race like this.
 
davidjohnson said:
On race standards over the last 5 years, the King George could be rated anywhere between 132-135 for the winner. On a 'going' day is Papal Bull a better horse than Youmzain? In my opinion yes he is. Given Youmzain's 130 rating, I don't think 132$ is at all out of context against other middle-distance horses.

Ratings run to in race, not necessarily a Timeform Annaual rating for the horses you mentioned Andrew are Dylan Thomas 132, Alamshar 133, Azamour 130, Doyen 132.
Click to expand...

David,

Thanks for your reply. Is it the case that Timeform believe most King george's will produce similar ratings through the years?

I think it was quite a weak field, and incomparable to many past KG's, especially Alamshar's year.
 
Euronymous said:
The RP went 128/127/113+/111/110

To me it looks like they`ve rated it through Red Rock Canyon on 111 which is just about as good as he is (probably flattered in the Irish Champion last year.) Timeform may have rated it through Ask who was given 110 by the RP but obviously more from the Halifax firm. 110 is somewhat below his best, but its obvious to me that the animal didn`t run anywhere near his true form.
Click to expand...

Cheers for that Euro. To me, it seems Ask has seriously regressed this year, and couldn't possibly be rated anywhere close to his performances last year, and is unreliable.
 
Gareth Flynn said:
As David suggests, I reckon race standardization came into it and such a yawning gap back to the third is rather unusual in a race like this.
Click to expand...

Yes, I'm familiar with how Timeform often rate races like this but surely this approach should go hand in hand with other variables, such as Papal Bull has never come close to a rating such as this in his career, and looked thoroughly exposed?
 
Andrew Hurley said:
Cheers for that Euro. To me, it seems Ask has seriously regressed this year, and couldn't possibly be rated anywhere close to his performances last year, and is unreliable.
Click to expand...

I think the whole race is unreliable and should be put down as just one of those unexplanable races. That is not a slight on DOM, as he is (in my opinion) by far the best of them and much superior than a 1lb to PB.

Apologies in advance Betsmate, but it reminds me somewhat of Dalakhani's Arc...Mubtaker getting a huge rating to give Dalakhani a rating he was probably capable of but did not actually achieve.
 
If you rate the race through Papal Bull, are you basically saying that nothing else in the race ran to form?
 
Galileo said:
I think the whole race is unreliable and should be put down as just one of those unexplanable races. That is not a slight on DOM, as he is (in my opinion) by far the best of them and much superior than a 1lb to PB.
Click to expand...

Tend to agree, but I don't think Timeform (or any pro handicapper) could seriously justify taking such a position - they've got to come up with something.
 
Surely better to err on the side of caution though? I'd agree with Galileo's comparison with Mubtaker.
 
The last time I can recall Timefom rampantly overrating an animal as bad as this was Celtic Swing after his RP Trophy win. They gave him 138 and admitted later that was too high. I think as this race was in July they`ve time to correct the feck up by the time Racehorses of 2008 comes out next March.
 
On the other side of the coin, take Duke of Marmalade out and what would race standardisation be telling you you should rate a 9l winner of the King George?

Rock and a hard place.
 
I've always been of the opinion that despite his quirks, Papal Bull has always been a seriously talented racehorse, often held back by his temperament, but on a given day when everything drops right that he has that sort of performance in him. He was an impressive winner of the King Edward VII as a 3-y-o from a Leger and Breeders Cup turf winner. For that reason I felt it was easier to justify a performance like that from him, than it would have been if Duke of Marmalade had pulled clear with a Lucarno or a Macarthur.
 
Last edited:
Gareth Flynn said:
On the other side of the coin, take Duke of Marmalade out and what would race standardisation be telling you you should rate a 9l winner of the King George?

Rock and a hard place.
Click to expand...

But take DoM out of that race and it`s the worst King George ever. Moreover if he hadn`t been aimed at the race a few three year old`s would have turned up.
 
Papal Bull is difficult to get a proper handle on.

I had him on 122? after the Newmarket race (POW) last year (via my 117 for Lucarno) and then even more tenuously on a straight line via Shahin (placed in the POW) on 128? for the Geoffrey Freer. He was subsequently below that so I ignored the higher figure as a false one.

His figures this year weren't really close to that, having been beaten by Lucarno in one race and Petara Bay wasn't far behind him. I'm usually quite wary of G2 & G3 form. They tend to be falsely run and throw up some distinctly iffy results so I was never going to be comfortable rating the KG via the 111 I had for Petara Bay this season. However, if you look at the KG via Petara Bay's OR of 105, it puts Papal Bull on 127 and Duke Of Marmalade 128.

Stoute has always had a reputation for improving his older horses and it could just be that Papal Bull is as talented as the form suggests but it has taken a new jockey [Peslier] to coax him into showing it. It might just as easily go belly-up next time.
 
As David suggests, I reckon race standardization came into it and such a yawning gap back to the third is rather unusual in a race like this.

but it's not unusual if you look at the sectionals which showed one reason why that gap was there...the front two sped away from the true stayers off a less than satisfactory pace for a race of this class...a simple conclusion to come to.

I am amazed that Timeform have not used sectional analysis to come to a more logical rating for Papal Bull...it's really easy to see why confirmed stayers could not go with the first two. The race was a joke pace...so serious rating is ...a irrelvant...and b impossible

A 132 for PB has to be the joke of the season/decade

Is Timeform sponsored by AOB these days? ;)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top