Ratings experts please.

Sheikh

At the Start
Joined
Feb 22, 2008
Messages
4,284
Location
The Garden
The fastest times run in the Guineas since 1994 have been by Mister Baileys 135.08 on GF in 1994. Pennekamp 135.06 on gf in '95 and Cockney Rebel 135.28 on Gf in 2004. RP ratings respectively of 122,127 and 124. Kings Best who ran 137.77 on gd in 2000 got an Rpr of 131. There seems to be quite a variance in the ratings for horses running similar times.

George Washington got a rating of 127 for running 136.86 on Gf in 2004 , he won by 2.5 lenghts.In Kings Best case he won by 3.5 lenghts which seems to be the only reason for justifying his rating of 131. George Washington got a rating of 127 for running 136.86 on Gf in 2004.As far as I can see the winning distance seems to be the main criteria for giving a higher rating than average, apart from that the criteria for giving the ratings seem to be garbled. Any thoughts on this would be welcome.
 
RPRs are generally based on how far the horse beat the other horses, and how good those other horses are.

The raw times, without adjustment for the going on the day, aren't directly comparable with each other.
 
Collateral form and expected race pars are the primary reasons for rating a big race winner, and therefore one which wins by a wider margin will be given a higher than average rating, irrespective of time. It's possible that a particularly slow time will see a rating downgraded, but the belief is that a group 1 race with a competitive field should see the peloton running to a similar rating year in, year out. The chief variable being the superiority of the winner to the generic field.
 
Thanks for that chaps. So it's purely based on who they beat and by how far ?

When George won his guineas it was on very fast ground yet his rating was a lot higher than those who recorded the fastest times on similar ground.
 
Similar official ground Sheikh ~ trying to work out the best historical Guineas/Derby winners based on times/going is very tricky and the ratings method, while open to error, is more reliable. The problem with rating the Guineas is rating the merit of the entire field at an early stage in the season; subsequent events show that the performances of some of the higher rated winners have been overestimated and that the horses they beat weren't as good as first appeared, eg Pennekamp who beat Celtic Swing, whereas Zafonic's performance looked even better in retrospect.
 
Yes, also rating horses by a winning distance is tricky, the likes of Rock of Gibraltar would always just do enough to win.
 
Thanks for that chaps. So it's purely based on who they beat and by how far ?

When George won his guineas it was on very fast ground yet his rating was a lot higher than those who recorded the fastest times on similar ground.

I haven't got my figures to hand, but I don't seem to think that is the case. As Gareth says all speed ratings are derived from a claculation of what the going correction (or track variance in American paralance) was. This is time that is either given back to a horse, or deducted from it depending on what you calculate it to be. Newmarket in fairness to them are normally one of the better tracks around, but it is by no means unheard of for certain tracks to declare ground wildly out of kilter with the times the horses run, (we've named some of the worst offenders before).

A variance figure is just that. A figure. You can crudely convert it into a going description, and speed raters will do so for the benefit of non-speed raters, but in truth we don't normally tend to talk in going descriptions and just use plus or minus figures accordingly. If memory serves me correctly, the ground for Cockney rebel was significantly quicker than that which George Washington won on (I don't care what the clerk called it, I'd rather rely on the horses to tell me). Once the corrections are made and equalised etc you can then calculate a rating, although if memory serves me right Cockney rebel might have earned a bigger speed figure than GW. Fats times are only really relevant against other winners on the same card on the same day, and therefore you can't really compare times from year to year in a meaningful way, without building a going correction into the equation. This would easily explain why a horse could earn a bigger RPR and yet run a slower time.

A Gp1 winner on G/F will always run a faster time than one that wins the same race on soft. That doesn't make the horse that ran the faster time superior. If I get time later I'll dig a hypothetical example out for you to crudely illustrate the principle behind it.
 
Last edited:
By coincidence I met Phil Cunningham [owner of Cockney Rebel for his two Guineas] at Gt Leighs last night - he lives down the road - and we and a group of his pals were talking about this very debate

They were all convinced before the two Guineas he was the best miler of his generation and bet accordingly, and were comparing him [favourably natch] to Henrythenavigator. They still laugh a bit wryly that he never got the kudos he deserved, partly due to his injury - and they've all sent a mare or two to him LOL

Phil told me btw that the name had nothing to do with Steve Harley or the group - Harley just kind of jumped on the bandwagon and made a bit of a nuisance of himself :rolleyes: Phil had had other horses with 'rebel' in the name eg Rebel Rebel [as "I'm a bit of a rebel see"] and was also born within the sound of Bow Bells


Edited as I mixed up Phils Cunningham and Martin - who is the owner of Ursis etc
I'm going quite deaf, oh dear
 
Last edited:
Phil had had other horses with 'rebel' in the name eg Rebel Rebel [as "I'm a bit of a rebel see"] and was also born within the sound of Bow Bells

The Guineas has been a good race for him than. Loved Cockney rebel and his sire. I remember duggan on Atr ,tongue in cheek pretending he couldn't remember who his sire was :rolleyes: He would have remembered if he was Coolmore ! I think John Magnier remembers Royal Academy alright ;) Might be part of the reason Cockney never got the credit he deserve i.e. not a very fashonable bloodline or connections.
 
If CR never got the credit he deserved (and I'm not sure he didn't) it was probably down to him being around at the top for only about 6 weeks before he was gone again.
 
That's part of it but I also detected at the time a reluctance from certain elements of the media to give him his dues.We heard more crap about footsteps than this chap.Perhaps his greatest achievement in his short racing life was to only get beaten 1.75 lengts in the St James Palace with a broken pelvis.
 
I'm afraid that was the truth Sheikh and it was the same on here as I remember well LOL (I backed him for both Guineas btw)

I understand Phil C didn't leave the course with his Irish mates til 1am - must have been quite a party, sorry I left so early!!

Imo the horse was a better than average Guineas winner and his injury was a crying shame - I so wanted to see him go on to prove the doubters all wrong. Always a bit worried though about a sire who's had such a catastrophic breakdown
 
I put up Cockney Rebel before the Guineas on the forum, as some will remember, and later said I'd be backing him again for the Irish Gs, so I'm NOT aftertiming. In fact I got a lot of flack here for being rather pleased with myself! [which I felt was sour grapes in certain predictable quarters, as did many others who pm'd me on the subject at the time]

I thought the story about the naming of the horse was amusing.
What sad bastids some of you are on here :p
There are no rules regarding how any of us use the forum, so far as I'm aware?
 
Last edited:
A Gp1 winner on G/F will always run a faster time than one that wins the same race on soft. That doesn't make the horse that ran the faster time superior. If I get time later I'll dig a hypothetical example out for you to crudely illustrate the principle behind it.


As promised;

We're dealing with a very hypothetical couple of cards here. Assume every race is a Gp1 race, all horses carry the same weight, and every race is a mile long to illustrate things, the list of times are set against a standard.

Card A

Horse 1a = +2.00
Horse 2a = +2.22
Horse 3a = +2.65
Horse 4a = +2.03
Horse 5a = +2.75
Horse 6a = +2.34

Card B

Horse 1b = -9.00
Horse 2b = -3.75
Horse 3b = -1.50
Horse 4b = -4.25
Horse 5b = -3.99
Horse 6b = -4.05

In terms of raw time Horse 5a is the fastest at +2.75. In reality though horse 3b is the fastest, despite running a slower time than all of the horses on card A.

This is all to do with with variance which are the conditions that the horses raced under. There's no hard and fast rule about how you calculate it (i routinely omit the slowest two races to minimise my chances of encountering a slow tactical race that might otherwise contaminate the calculation). In this instance horse 1b would be one such example.

With two slowest omitted you can then add the others together and divide by the number of races (4 in this case). What you get is a figure that indicates the degree to which the ground was either assisting or hindering a horse. The average for card A is +2.49 and card B -3.31.

That is to say the ground on card A was speeding horse sup by 2.49 secs per mile, and slowing them down by 3.31 secs on card B. (+2.49 is about Good to Firm, Good in places, whilst -3.31 is Soft).

With these variances now known you can assess the horses by either taking the time away in the case of a positive figure, or giving it back in the case of a negative. The fastest horse on card A ran +2.75 on ground that was assisting him to the tune of +2.49, which means that 2.49 secs of his performance was down to the ground, and +0.26 secs his ability. Although I use the American scale of 0.17secs per length, the BHB scale is 0.20 secs for a flat horse, and 0.25 secs for a jumps horse. That is the amount of time it takes a horse to cover its own length.

So you divide 0.26 secs by 0.20 which equals = 1.3. For ease I use 100 but it doesn't matter what figure you use so long as its the same reference point for each horse. In this case it's a positive rating, so you add 1.3 to 100 for a rating of 101.30. Horse 1a is a negative rating;

2.00 - 2.49 = -0.49 /0.20 = 2.45 - 100 = 97.55

Now as I said, 3b is the fastest horse. The ground was slwoing horses up by 3.31 secs, yet 3b only ran slow by 1.50 secs suggesting that 1.81 secs of the performance was down to ability.

3.31 - 1.50 = +1.81/ 0.20 = 9.05 + 100 = 109.05

Horse 1b would be rogue element as he was particularly slow which indicates that he probably possess a change of gear to win a Gp1 race off such a slow time.

3.31 - 9.00 = -5.69/ 0.20 = 28.45 - 100 = 71.55

Hope that helps? The variance calculation is the root of all speed ratings and it can be very useful at certain festival meetings as it allows you to monitor the ground in running and alter strategy accordingly. Some courses are notoriously misleading, and I 'd prefer to let the horse tell me what the ground is like rather than a jockey, trainer or clerk
 
Last edited:
Thanks Warbler. The write up in the post suggests it was v fast ground for George.

I'd suggest that the RP are wrong, and I'd be pretty confident I'd be right. Using the method described the ground was riding fast at +1.80 which is on the very fast side of good and nothing more. It might earn the comment Good, good to frim in places. Using the method I've adopted this year it would be +1.68 which is on the fast side of good. The Rowley mile standards have been debated on here before, and they are quite punitive, but then no horse beat standard that day, (Dandy Man got nearest). If it were very fast ground then someone would have beaten standard, as both Cockney Rebel +0.72 and Finscael Beo the day after +1.06 both achieved it on ground I think was riding Good to Firm at +2.59 and +3.18 respectively
 
Fear not Sheikh, it's actually a bit more complicated than this example as things such as the class of different races and weight come into the equation, but this is a crude illustration of the principles behind it
 
Back
Top